Jason Statham is one of the most popular stars working in Hollywood today, yet his career hasn’t always been plain sailing. Between major blockbusters like the Fast and Furious franchise, The Meg series, and standalone hits like The Beekeeper, Statham has built a well-earned reputation on the back of hugely enjoyable, crowd-pleasing action. But Statham’s strength is not necessarily consistency. While he’s proven his ability to spearhead popular projects, Statham is seemingly just as capable of picking duds. Among his multitude of critical and commercial flops, one Statham movie stands head and shoulders above the rest.
2007’s In the Name of the King was, by any reckoning, a disaster. The high-fantasy epic has the dubious honor of being Jason Statham’s lowest-rated movie on Rotten Tomatoes. With a measly 4% positive reviews, the movie received heavy criticism on release for its nonsensical plot, bizarre dialogue, wooden performances, and derivative storytelling. In many cases, this consensus would be enough to confine a movie to the trash heap of history. However, in order to establish whether Jason Statham’s “worst movie of all time” really was as bad as most people believe, I decided that, in 2024, it was time to revisit the infamous bomb.
In The Name Of The King Deserves Its Terrible Reputation
4% Might Be Too High A Score
It’s sometimes the case that once-panned movies undergo a dramatic reappraisal with the benefit of hindsight. It’s safe to say that In the Name of the King will not enjoy the same rehabilitation. 17 years on from its release, the movie remains one of the most confusing, poorly-executed, and outright bizarre cinematic experiences it’s possible to sit through. Even for someone like me with a particular affection for movies that toe the line between bad and brilliance, In the Name of the King tramples over any redeeming qualities the celebrated videogame source material might have had.
From characters who turn up and vanish with no introduction, to villains who have no backstory, to lore that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, In the Name of the King is a textbook example of how not to construct a high-fantasy narrative.
Everything about the film is unconventional. From characters who turn up and vanish with no introduction, to villains who have no backstory, to lore that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, In the Name of the King is a textbook example of how not to construct a high-fantasy narrative. Combined with special effects that look cheap (despite a $60 million budget) and actors sleepwalking through scenes, the whole production is a catalog of errors, making it easy to see why it attracted such critical ire. And yet, watching In the Name of the King is not all bad.
In The Name Of The King Is Never Boring
Unlike Many Bad Movies, It Remains Entertaining
The biggest crime a bad film can commit is being dull. Audiences will forgive a movie a lot, so long as there’s enough on-screen action to justify the expense of a theater ticket. Critical flops like the Transformers movies are living proof of this. While In the Name of the King is not in the same league as the wildly successful Michael Bay-led series, there’s no denying that the messy blend of action set pieces, inadvertently hilarious dialog, and strange characters makes the movie incredibly engaging.
The story moves along at an incredible pace. Within the first few minutes, audiences have been introduced to Ray Liotta’s sinister villain, Jason Statham’s stoically heroic “Farmer”, and a host of other characters whose backgrounds remain shrouded in mystery for much of the runtime. While what’s actually happening in the story is baffling, In the Name of the King wastes no time in sending Statham into battle against the fearsome Krug, before he goes off on an epic adventure, featuring woodnymphs. All this plays out against the backdrop of political scheming that would put Game of Thrones to shame, giving viewers plenty to chew over.
Jason Statham’s Worst Movie Has Arguably His Best-Ever Cast
In The Name Of The King Has Some Incredible Talent
Before watching In the Name of the King, I was expecting to spend most of my time in the company of Jason Statham’s chiseled action hero. And yet, the truth is that Farmer is just one small cog in the movie’s complex machine. Although he’s ostensibly the lead, Statham shares the screen with acting heavyweights like Ron Perlman, Ray Liotta, Burt Reynolds, and John Rhys Davies. Perhaps even more surprising are the likes of Matthew Lillard, Kristanna Loken (best known for her leading role in Terminator 3), and Meet Joe Black star Claire Forlani.
…even with his more successful movies taken into account, it’s hard to argue that In the Name of the King doesn’t represent one of the 57-year-old’s most impressive collection of costars.
Given his involvement in the Fast and Furious series, as well as several other successful franchises, Statham is no stranger to sharing the screen with an ensemble cast. However, even with his more successful movies taken into account, it’s hard to argue that In the Name of the King doesn’t represent one of the 57-year-old’s most impressive collection of costars. The fact that it’s happened in a movie with such a poor reputation only makes it more remarkable.
In The Name Of The King Is More Entertaining Than Statham’s Other Bad Films
It’s Definitely Easier To Watch Than Many Of Them
With its 4% score, In the Name of the King ranks at the bottom of Statham’s extensive filmography – at least, according to Rotten Tomatoes. However, the closer you look at the titles that supposedly rank above the movie, the more unfair this position seems. While In the Name of the King is by no means an underappreciated gem, it’s definitely a more enjoyable viewing experience than other Statham turkeys.
Compared to projects like 13 and Turn It Up, In the Name of the King seems much more entertaining. Although its ludicrous story and high-fantasy narrative make it comparatively easy to mock, there’s no doubt that there is more for audiences to enjoy in the 2007 Dungeon Siege adaptation. It even passes higher-rated Statham movies in the entertainment stakes, such as the notoriously plodding Revolver. If fun was the only factor in determining a film’s success, I would certainly reconsider In the Name of the King’s position in Statham’s career.
In The Name Of The King Is A Warning To Other Fantasy Movies
It Proves What Can Go Wrong
Perhaps because of the success and legacy of Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy, we have a slightly false idea of how feasible high-fantasy stories are on the big screen. The ease with which Jackson crafted his cohesive vision for Middle-earth left many fantasy fans feeling that taking a similar approach to other stories was relatively straightforward. In the Name of the King acts as a welcome reminder that fantasy storytelling is anything but simple.
… In the Name of the King launches into its story with all the subtlety of a Jason Statham karate kick.
Whereas The Lord of the Rings turns Middle-earth into a believable setting with carefully considered character introductions and lore explanations, In the Name of the King launches into its story with all the subtlety of a Jason Statham karate kick. The propulsiveness of the story (which simultaneously makes it extremely entertaining) makes it almost impossible to fully grasp what’s going on. The rules of the movie’s world, such as the role of magic, are never adequately explained, highlighting how fantastical concepts can quickly snowball into chaos in the wrong hands.
In The Name Of The King Affected Statham’s Career
He Has Been Much More Conservative
Jason Statham has historically, and probably always will, prioritized action movies. Before In the Name of the King, he had established his credentials with starring roles in The Transporter movies, laying the groundwork for future success. However, while action was his bread and butter, Statham also featured in a range of other genres and projects. At the start of his career, he appeared in the slick crime comedies Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, as well as more eccentric projects like John Carpenter’s Ghosts of Mars, the romantic drama London, and Vinnie Jones’ sports comedy Mean Machine.
Roles like these represent a surprising diversity in Statham’s pre-In the Name of the King career. However, in the years since the movie’s release, he arguably became much more conservative in his roles, retreating back to the comfort blanket of traditional action. Aside from a voice role in Gnomeo & Juliet, it arguably wasn’t until the 2015 comedy movie Spy that Statham dared to do something different. While it’s not clear to which the failure of his high-fantasy debut persuaded Statham to concentrate on action movies, the correlation is interesting.
In The Name Of The King Proves Statham’s Star Power
He Is One Of The Few Highlights Of The Film
Even though In the Name of the King has many, many flaws, the movie is a great example of why Jason Statham was destined for stardom. Despite the ridiculous dialog and inexplicable story, Statham remains a magnetic presence throughout. While it’s clear from his performance that he’s just as confused about what’s going on as the audience, he is much more committed than many of his costars.
The movie also plays to Statham’s strengths by giving him plenty to do on the action front. The first battles against the Krug, for instance, are a demonstration of Statham’s talents as a physical performer, with most of the spectacle being largely special effects free. While there are definitely better Jason Statham action movies, I found it telling that he was able to shine even in a role like this.
In The Name Of The King Is A Forerunner To More Successful Projects
It Paved The Way For Future Successes
Just as In the Name of the King compares unfavorably to seminal genre releases like The Lord of the Rings, the movie may have inadvertently provided a warning to subsequent fantasy projects. Thematically, for instance, it’s very easy to see how the film may have been an inspiration for something like The Witcher. Both were preceded by popular videogames, and both are set in complicated worlds that require adequate explanation for the rest of the story to succeed. It’s not hard to see how The Witcher’s producers might have looked to learn lessons from the 2007 film’s failure to the benefit of their own adaptation.
…when there is such a clear warning from history about what can go wrong, it’s notable that later high-fantasy adaptations have taken a drastically different approach.
Another example of a fantasy success story post-In the Name of the King is Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. Although the 2023 movie disappointed at the box office, it took a very different approach to the Statham movie, concentrating its story and building a believable world without too many confusing narrative tangents. Again, there is no explicit connection between the projects. However, when there is such a clear warning from history about what can go wrong, it’s notable that later high-fantasy adaptations have taken a drastically different approach.
In The Name Of The King Is Incredibly Enjoyable
Just Because It’s Bad Doesn’t Mean It Should Be Forgotten
For all its faults, In the Name of the King is one of the most ironically enjoyable films I’ve ever seen. Even though the combination of high-fantasy and entertainingly bad movie-making is something I have a peculiar soft spot for, it’s hard for anyone to argue that the Statham movie doesn’t constitute a good time. The storytelling is so committed and so ludicrous that it becomes very difficult to look away. As soon as any particular scene strays towards becoming tedious, the action gathers pace, transporting viewers to a completely different setting and story. It’s a whirlwind approach that keeps everyone on their toes.
In the Name of the King is not a good movie. All the criticisms leveled at it by contemporary critics are more than justified, and its legacy cannot be rehabilitated. And yet, in all of Jason Statham’s varied and impressive filmography, it would be a mistake to rank it alongside other, much more forgettable failures.